Creation Vs Evolution

10 Mar

ICR Answers Critics

The Institute for Creation Research (ICR) has received a great deal of media attention since its graduate school applied to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) for the right to grant degrees in Texas. ICR welcomes intelligent discourse from informed individuals; however, a few vocal critics have made inflammatory remarks without offering proof to support their claims.

Such is the case of high school biology teacher Steve Bratteng, whose commentary “How much do you know about evolution?” appears in the February 8, 2008, issue of The Austin American-Statesman.  Mr. Bratteng mentions Chris Comer’s resignation from the Texas Education Agency and ICR’s THECB application in the same sentence, a juxtaposition that conveys both bias and misinformation. Comer’s resignation was a separate event that has no connection with ICR’s application. Although Ms. Comer was understandably disappointed at losing her job, she has allowed anti-creation and anti-intelligent design interest groups such as theNational Center for Science Education and the Texas Citizens for Science to use her as a martyr in furthering their agendas to promote a secular progressive ideology in education and stifle authentic scientific inquiry and academic freedom.

American students’ lack of interest and aptitude in science can be attributed to “the weakness of our teaching of evolution and the general lack of understanding of scientific theories,” Bratteng claims. However, like many other commentators, he failed to mention that Darwinian evolutionary theory has dominated America’s public school curriculum for most of the last century. It is more likely that the situation is caused by educators not doing their jobs properly (probably a minority of the cases), flawed curriculum, or a combination of the two. The influence of creation science is not to blame on either front because it is almost universally excluded from the public school classroom.

Bratteng’s statements reflect another popular mantra of Darwinian evolution theorists, namely that creation scientists don’t perform “real” scientific inquiry in their respective fields. Yet many non-Darwinian scientists are educated, degreed (most from top universities in the country; view a list here of creation scientists and their degrees and achievements), and are conducting research whose results contradict the claims made by evolutionary scientists.

Bratteng posted in his article a list of 13 questions that he claimed could not be answered without Darwinian evolution. Below, zoologist and ICR Science Editor Frank Sherwin responds to Mr. Bratteng’s questions and the answers he posted.

“Darwinian (or ‘evolutionary’) medicine is a term coined by a group of evolutionary researchers in 1991. It attempts to answer various medical conditions caused by modern society that affect both animals and humans. It’s just another attempt to shoe-horn the square peg of Darwinism into the round hole of medicine,” Sherwin said. The series of medical conditions Bratteng mentioned, including obesity, morning sickness, and depression, “are wholly uncoupled to the origins issue.”

“Evolutionists have divided Darwinian medicine into four areas: virulence, host defenses, genetic conflict, and incomplete adjustment to a shifting environment. But although they revel in using Darwinian principles to explain everything from morning sickness to retinal detachment, Darwinian medicine falls far short on actually defining and conducting adequate tests, which are what medical and other fields of empirical science are all about.”

The genetics of HIV infection resistance has nothing to do with “macroevolution” or vertical changes from one kind to another, but rather involves horizontal changes within the same genus and species (microevolution), Sherwin said. “Such a study involves basic Mendelian genetics and molecular biology. People of European descent are more resistant to the AIDS virus because they don’t have the receptor protein on the plasma membrane of their cells required for the AIDS virus to enter. An entire medical career may be spent addressing and researching this fact without once ever having to address Darwinism.”

“The same application of Mendelian genetics and molecular biology may be used to address the tragic loss of the Native American population to European diseases,” said Sherwin, who specializes in parasitology and formerly taught Medical Microbiology at Pensacola Christian College. Creation scientists have addressed infectious diseases before, and ICR has discussed malaria in the past and how it does not support Darwinian evolution.

“Evolutionists also don’t make clear distinctions between the causes of medical diseases that are supposedly ‘explained’ by Darwinism and those that Darwinism cannot explain,” Sherwin said. “These difficult theoretical issues are ignored.”

In response to Bratteng’s mention of dinosaur-to-bird evolution, Sherwin said, “Indeed, paleontology has yet to successfully document such a bizarre dinosaur-to-bird transition. There are plenty of secular scientists who remain unconvinced,” as evidenced in the article “Which came first, the feather or the bird?” that appeared in the March 2003 issue of Scientific American.

“Bad design” arguments, such as the human trachea’s small size and human retinal detachment mentioned by Bratteng, are “hardly evidence for macroevolution,” Sherwin said. “If one is involved in violent sports or vehicular accidents, then there is certainly a significant tendency for such an injury, but what does this have to do with Darwinism?” He predicted that a series of G-force experiments performed on squids would show that cephalopods would experience the same percentage of retinal detachment as humans.

“Convergent evolution,” he said, is unscientific. “Convergence is to be expected on the basis of creation according to a common design–similar structures are designed by the Creator to meet similar needs. The eyes of squids and humans are totally distinct from one another right from their first appearance in the fossil record.”

In response to the issue of incontinence, Sherwin said, it “has nothing to do with the origin of the species but is simply the price one must pay for advancing age. Through the ravages of time, our bodies, which are composed of 11 irreducibly complex systems, break down and wear out. This of course is predicted by the creation science model that states all life is subject to informational thermodynamics.” He cited Dr. John Sanford’s 2005 book Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome as a way for inquisitive minds to gain understanding of the “degenerating genome,” as well as the creation science model, the nature of mutations, and the diseases they cause.

ICR recognizes Bratteng’s effort to inform his students of the creation/evolution debate in the last slide of his instructional Power Point presentation entitled “Evidence for Evolution.” However, to provide a true picture of the issues involved, he should avoid subjecting his students to the bias of and should add more resources that address the wide spectrum of the debate, including ICR’s website at

Perhaps the appeal for commentators like Bratteng is easy access to a public forum while avoiding the rigors of a formal public debate against a qualified creation scientist. According to the media and blogs, evolutionists highly favor citing politics (i.e., Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District) rather than research to defend their views. If science is truly the double-blind body of inquiry by which we understand the world around us, then Darwinism should support itself without the aid of political crutches


Tags: , , ,

3 responses to “Creation Vs Evolution

  1. joe

    April 23, 2009 at 8:47 am

    What the hell is Darwinism? Seriously, you lose credibility as soon as you say that. Imagine talking to a physicist about einsteinism.

  2. David

    April 23, 2009 at 3:03 pm

    “…,evolutionists highly favor citing politics (i.e., Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District) rather than research to defend their views. If science is truly the double-blind body of inquiry by which we understand the world around us, then Darwinism should support itself without the aid of political crutches.”

    You cannot be serious in making this statement. Go to almost any respected university library and dive into the shelves and shelves of research journals and articles that discuss biology and evolution; detailed research that goes back decades. You may still disagree with its conclusions but to deny its existance is to make your arguement from a position of ignorance; and I say that not suggesting your are stupid, but simply that I assume you simply are not aware that such research is abundant and publically available for all to enjoy.

    Evolution by natural selection has not been accepted by the majority of scientists simply because it sounds like a plausable explanation. It has acheived its status as a scientific theory, equal in status to that of the theory of gravity, because the mechanism of natural selection makes predictions about the development of biological phenomena that actually appears to accord strongly with the past and present observation of the natural world. Not just the fossil record, but it explains the distribution of species, the changes in those species and also of features of the genetic code. All this is documented in detail in the publically available scientific literature, which any good university biology department collects and examines as part and parcel of its day to day work.

    Hope this helps you understand the status of evolution and why it can rightly stand as an important part of science and of our understanding of the world around us.

    Best wishes.

  3. Ben

    April 26, 2009 at 11:28 pm

    Wishing for something really, really, really hard will not make it come true. Fighting for something that you believe in will not make it come true if it is not real. Resolutely defending your beliefs, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, will not make them rational, no matter how hard you fight. Supporting your belief with claims about the nature of the universe that you can’t possibly support with any objective evidence only degrades your credibility. And constructing outright lies in support of your belief, no matter how righteous you believe it to be, is just immoral.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: